barryallen

Knowing nothing about the bidder, I am stumped at what dummy's holding is to go straight to 6♦ without any interest of controls? The only type of hand that makes sense to me is something where you need to cash out the ♠A and a slim hope for a trump trick, because your two Q's don't look to be lying favourably. I just do not see how leading a low ♠ will get you anything that you would have not of had a good chance of getting anyway? The only issue would be the ♠ trick disappearing. The only other viable option is partner having a K in ♥ or ♣, in which case leading the ♠A could cost. It would not surprise me that the lead of a small ♣ could work.

To make any sense, I could not see the bid having a control and the particular hand would have been maximum for the bid. Just never come across this previously and was intrigued to what the remainder of the bids were. There are other ways you can get to the contract, so even the surprise of how well it worked soon loses it's appeal.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakqj842ha4d7ca82&s=s75hq53dq98543c109]133|200|Scoring: IMP 2♣-P-3♦-P 3NT all pass[/hv] Can anyone else fill in the remaining details or points of interest?

That makes a lot of sense, 2♦ is always going to be forcing and although partner will not know exactly what is going on, should soon find out after your next bid. By which time you should both have a good understanding of each others holding and the confidence to go past 3NT in search of the slam

Watching Brink-Drijver over the last few months and have seen similar hands bid to the grand with ease. It just appears that these slams are only put on here as an advert for the strong club approach.

Without the corresponding 10's and 9's, you could well be limited to ♥Jx, ♦KJx being of possible value. That said, you have already given partner a good indication of what he may expect with the 2♥ rebid and he still forces with 2♠. On that basis I would bid 3♠ and let partner decide where he wants to be.

I am really struggling with the logic of doubling a 2♣ stayman bid with ♣KQ10x, always in front of the NT opening hand. I perfectly understand the gain it can have with partners lead, but that has to be greatly outweighed by the advantage it gives to the NT opener. Unless you can stand defending in 2♣xx, you have just given the opponents another option for a good score, more space to evaluate the best contract over the known threat and reasonably confident that ♣AJx will provide a double stopper for declarer in NT. It may avoid the opponents walking a 3NT contract without the ♣ lead, but the other side of that is a winning major contract in a 4-3 fit and a losing 3NT contract. If you were told that you were going to be opening a 1NT hand and your RHO would be doubling your partners 2♣ stayman bid, who would want to hear that double with that hand?

This would not surprise me to find ♦4-3 with the opps, what ever way round. Definitely want to play ♦ and restrict the ruffing and would play small. Really not sure on this lead and have this over whelming fear of giving away tricks what ever. Should really start with a ♦ honour, but feel partner may have a singleton ♦ of some value and a line of spades to nothing. Obviously got this wrong from the title!

What I find difficult to see is a proven case for opening 1♣with 4-4 in the minors? Taking this a stage further, I would have thought there being more of a case to open this with a weak 1NT, rather than 1♣?

Not sure I am comparing apples with apples, but for the point we are now at. Having finessed once and lost to an honour, we now assume that East only started with one spade. Now assuming you have the option of being able to take the second finesse we are now left with the following possibilities in clubs. 1) - v Hx 2) x v H 3) H v x 4)Hx v - Leading towards North, options 1 and 3 are an irrelevance. You can do nothing about 1, and 3 being obvious which ever method. That just leaves the individual odds for 2 and 4, with 2 being close to a 5/2 favourite for the drop?

IMO ♥x = 10, ♣x = 9, ♠x = 6, ♦ = 1. Normally, this kind of double is lead-directing but, in the context of this hand and this auction, it's hard to decide what to lead. Even if partner prefers something else, a heart lead may disrupt communications. Perhaps dummy is 6115 and declarer is 0472. These problems are more fun as polls. It's amusing to watch how popular the winning lead becomes, as soon as the full deal is published :) Partner has all the values and is either doubling based upon a specific lead or irrespective of that lead. On that basis, you should be able to guarantee getting the contract down by leading a spade. You were marked for a heart lead anyway, so why would partner minimise his chances by doubling, if that was the lead required? :rolleyes: As to the actual hand, that is normally an irrelevance that tends to distort the logic rather than add.

After the ♥A, I can't see any other card but a ♠. The reason being holding the ♣Qxxx and ♠J9. If declarer has any entry to dummy, his ♣ losers are going to vanish along with the contract by the looks of things. The one possible entry we can deny him is by playing a ♠ with the possibility it may cost a trick. If declarer has access to dummy it is doubtful the ♣Q will pick up a trick and the ♠J9 looks only to be helping declarer by falling under higher honours. Where the ♠ return will cost, is if you reduce your ♠ tricks from 2 to 1 and declarer does not have the ♣A but does have access to dummy. In that case the only lead to get the contract down is a ♣? If it comes down to a choice between a ♠ and a ♣ from that holding, I would strongly favour the ♠. I await the grand canyon being pointed out amongst this, but at present can see nothing else.

One long suit accompanied by a secondary suit, circa opening points with two losers. Or are you going to try and fit a variety of stronger hands into this bid?

The crux of the point is based upon opening 6♥ when missing the ♥A and another feature to bring the contract home. You can normally find out whether partner has the Ace. I am having difficulty with the logic of not asking about the ♥A ? ITS A PREEMPT TOO! void KQJT-8th AK-5th void Many would open 6H with that. That doesn't mean they want to be in 7 opposite the ♥A. That is workable. But why would anyone want to incorporate all the other bids mentioned into that, just does not stand up.

The crux of the point is based upon opening 6♥ when missing the ♥A and another feature to bring the contract home. You can normally find out whether partner has the Ace. I am having difficulty with the logic of not asking about the ♥A ? What interests me is the structure you can place upon such a bid without being handled by 2♣-6♥

I don't do XX unless I feel I could make 7 in this situation, others have different ideas I know. On my basis the only way I can see in bringing this down, is to hope to give partner a diamond ruff. Would not surprise me to find the spade lead to be correct, but it would only be a spade or diamond lead for me. Nice to have a look with the ♥A, but I feel it could all be over once you lay that card.

I can see the logic and and having definition between 2♣-6♥ over 6♥ direct, but exactly how is opening 6♥ direct with AK KQJT98x AKJx going to help the partnership unless partner has A♥ and AK♣? you don't think the Q♦ alone is enough to make 6? The original hand Josh posted was ♠AK ♥KQJT98x ♦AKJx ♣- The a priori odds of partner holding the Q♦ or A♥ is 55%. That alone is probably enough justification to bid 6♥ altho you still need luck with the ♦ if partner has just the A♥. What I think is that it is enough of a risk opening 6♥ with ♠AK ♥KQJT98x ♦AKJx ♣- if you know partner has the ♥A. To do so without knowing the position of the ♥A and ability to restrict your losers in ♦ to one, seems very brave! Especially when you have the ability to identify whether partner holds the ♥A. There may well be situations where you are forced to take a punt, but you are no where near that position, so why create that position? Let's assume you know partner does not have the ♥A, do you now take a punt on restricting the ♦ losers to 1 and bid on? If you have to take a blind guess on 6♥ I won't argue that point. But we are not in that position, so why deliberately create that position when it is unnecessary? You have shown the odds for one position, over looking all other positions.

Make things easy for partner, he could have a hand where he is left with a very difficult decision, impossible to get right by your silence. Passing makes him guess where there should be no guess. You have very good defensive values and you should let partner know that fact, double.

I can see the logic and and having definition between 2♣-6♥ over 6♥ direct, but exactly how is opening 6♥ direct with AK KQJT98x AKJx going to help the partnership unless partner has A♥ and AK♣?

Without fully understanding what 4♣ means here, I would bid 5♣. If I was on lead, I would be reasonably confident of getting the contract down with a ♠ lead and pass. Off lead I can easily see any entry into partners hand possibly disappearing and 4♥ making. Even if I have this wrong, it's w/r and there is still a small chance that the defence can get the opening lead wrong and let 5♣ slip through.

It is clear to me. LHO doesn't know how many clubs you have or how strong/shapely your partner's hand is. Besides that, people never DBL in situations like this, even if they "should" :lol: Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com 3♣ is the only contract which is undoubled so far and still gives partner possible options, so gets my vote. As for the actual hand this is a disaster, but it's not about partners hand but the best from a bad lot.

Yes. Or, looking at it another way, you can signal for any suit using a low card. In fact, this applies only if you have a choice of which suit to signal with, so only if you're discarding. I imagine that makes the advantage rather smaller than for UDCA, so maybe my surprise is unwarranted. I would imagine the advantage would be more? You now have a high and a low card to signal the same thing. Sometimes avoiding a possibly valuable high card or baring an honour with a low card. Additionally two discards from a long suit can achieve the same guidance. What really intrigues me is especially on first lead, do players give attitude or count. I have always followed attitude /switch on first lead dependent upon dummy. Interested in those that just use count because I have seen successful players use it in the past. Not talking about an attitude / count signal dependent upon the card led, but count irrespective of the card led.

Maybe I am missing something major here, but I would not write off 4♥ on the basis. If partner has just ♥AKJxxxx, ♣Axx with a ♠void or ♦ entry? even with ♣Kxx, it still has options? And if partner does not have 3♣, there's a good chance he has enough in ♦? The crux for me would be "did I believe partner was void in ♠"?

Everything looks like it is going to cost, with no real safe lead. There is a very good possibility that you can garnish 3 tricks from ♥, so on that basis I would look for the setting trick. ♣ possible, and looks the safest of all the leads. ♦ really not happy with this one, plus the 3 looks like an obvious singleton. ♥ again possible, but really does not advance the chances of 3 tricks from the suit. ♠ could easily give away a trick, may gain a trick. If we have a ♣ trick, what are the chances of it evaporating by leading a ♠? If we have a ♠ trick, what are the chances of it evaporating by leading a ♣? If the ♣ is wrong, the ♠ trick may disappear. A ♠ looks the more dangerous, but there is some chance that there is time to establish the ♣ trick at a later point. On that basis I would lead a ♠.

Fred Gitelman always describes his rationale so well in these situations. For me 2S vun would describe this hand, leaving a 1S nv as the best of a not so perfect job.